If Only the Policy Analysts Agreed with Me, as Well as the Climate Scientists

When I noted that even if we are entering a "Little Ice Age," that would not mean global warming theories are false, boy did I get a lot of flak... from some policy analysts. And those are the people who really understand climate science! Here is what some silly climate scientist says:

'"However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. "The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming."'

But what the heck do mere climate scientists know about the meaning of the findings of climate science? 

11 comments:

  1. Can we get a link to these policy analysts who gave you the flak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See comments after the link above.

      Delete
  2. Oh, so does this mean you will stop criticizing biologists when they speak of evolution, and meteorologists when they do their job? I always loved those posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob, WHAT are you talking about?

      1) Where does this post say anyone should "stop criticizing climate scientists"? The point of the post is that you and Josiah basically regarded me as mildly retarded for suggesting that we could have a mini ice age, and AGW could still be true. I am just noting that here an actual climate scientist says just what I said, so perhaps I am not as dull as you two made me out to be.

      2) In fact, I DON'T criticize biologists on their biological findings. When they say, "Our closest living relative is the chimp" or "Whales evolved from land creatures," I say, "Interesting!" I DO criticize them when they begin to philosophize "based on" their scientific findings, e.g., "We are controlled by selfish genes," which is obviously NOT a scientific finding.

      2) I DON'T criticize meteorologists on their meteorological findings. I never said, "Wow, obviously that bonehead should have seen the jet stream was going to dip." I DO criticize a MEDIA OUTLET like the Weather Channel when they do things like post that it is currently 60, and the low for the day will be 65. Do you think the actual meteorologists they have working for them are happy to see that on their web site?!

      So, this post doesn't mean what you take it to mean, and I never make the sort of posts you say I make. Other than that, sound comment!

      PS: I will give you $100 for every instance you can find of me actually disagreeing with the biological science of a biologist, or the meteorological science of a meteorologist. I offer Scott Scheall or Kizito KIzimbo, both PhDs in the philosophy of science, as judges for your entries.

      Delete
    2. By the way, I *don't know enough climate science* to know if you know enough climate science to capably criticize climate scientists. I do know you've studied it much more than I have, and I know for sure that *I* don't know enough climate science to criticize them.

      Delete
  3. "The point of the post is that you and Josiah basically regarded me as mildly retarded for suggesting that we could have a mini ice age, and AGW could still be true."

    For any neutral observer, please click Gene's link and read what Josiah and I actually wrote. It is not in the same ZIP code as Gene's description here.

    In fact, Gene I think *you* should re-read what we wrote. You seem to have been carrying around this assault on your intelligence for months, when it did not occur.

    For those who want the quick version: All Josiah and I were saying is that the actual climate models already took solar cycles into account, and had made specific predictions about the *level* of temperatures. So if there turns out to be a mini-ice age, then yes, those models are wrong, period.

    Now, does that mean human emissions of CO2 don't cause warming, other things equal? No, of course not. It just means the standard models were wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before we move on here, I just want to be clear:
      1) you concede that this post actually says nothing about whether or not you are qualified to criticize climate scientists;
      2) you concede that I never actually criticize biologists on biological science; and
      3) you concede that I never criticize meteorologists on their meteorology
      Right?

      Delete
    2. And my original post talked about the *theory* of AGW, not any particular model. My post was correct, you two rushed in with irrelevant technicalities, and were wrong, period.

      Delete
    3. Gene, here is what you originally wrote in that post:

      If it is true, it does not mean that global warming theories have been wrong, or a "hoax," as some people absurdly have contended.

      That certainly sounded like you were referring to specific theories (plural) that involved manmade global warming, and not to the general theory (singular) that humans can cause temperatures to be higher, other things equal, by emitting CO2.

      If you had said, "Even if another ice age hits us, it is still true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas," Josiah and I would not have disagreed.

      Delete
    4. By referring to "theories" I am clearly saying I'm not tying the claim to a particular theory, just to the general class of theories that say "Humans are warming the climate."

      Delete
  4. Gene,

    When I click on the link, the article is titled "There Probably Won't Be A 'Mini Ice Age' In 15 Years." The article indicates that it's been substantially updated; not sure what it said before.

    Despite the media hype around this, the effect size from the paper is something like 0.5Wm-2. Anthopogenic forcings are currently increasing at a rate of around 0.4Wm-2/decade. So if the paper is right, the reduction in solar radiation will offset about a decade's worth of global warming and will do so for about a decade. That's it.

    Bob and I aren't climate scientists, but we do have a decent grasp of what climate scientists claim.

    ReplyDelete